Log in:  

Register

Lappartient is worse for cycling than Cookson?

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: Re:

15 Jun 2018 11:08

DirtyWorks wrote:The UCI as a federation clearly favors riders and teams based on viewership and how much money they bring. Right now, it's Sky.
Are you trying to say that the UCI are delaying the process in order to favour Sky, as Sky are good for cycling's PR?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,850
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

15 Jun 2018 12:40

fmk_RoI wrote:
DirtyWorks wrote:The UCI as a federation clearly favors riders and teams based on viewership and how much money they bring. Right now, it's Sky.
Are you trying to say that the UCI are delaying the process in order to favour Sky, as Sky are good for cycling's PR?


No, he is saying that by Froome riding he Giro and Tour and wining is good for cycling PR. Which has been fairly much proven out by Froome’s Giro win, a lot of good and glowing press.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,481
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

15 Jun 2018 18:04

thehog wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
DirtyWorks wrote:The UCI as a federation clearly favors riders and teams based on viewership and how much money they bring. Right now, it's Sky.
Are you trying to say that the UCI are delaying the process in order to favour Sky, as Sky are good for cycling's PR?


No, he is saying that by Froome riding he Giro and Tour and wining is good for cycling PR. Which has been fairly much proven out by Froome’s Giro win, a lot of good and glowing press.
So much for all those who so noisily claimed he was damaging the sport and should ge banned. Show's you how little they know, I guess.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,850
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

15 Jun 2018 20:03

fmk_RoI wrote:
thehog wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
DirtyWorks wrote:The UCI as a federation clearly favors riders and teams based on viewership and how much money they bring. Right now, it's Sky.
Are you trying to say that the UCI are delaying the process in order to favour Sky, as Sky are good for cycling's PR?


No, he is saying that by Froome riding he Giro and Tour and wining is good for cycling PR. Which has been fairly much proven out by Froome’s Giro win, a lot of good and glowing press.
So much for all those who so noisily claimed he was damaging the sport and should ge banned. Show's you how little they know, I guess.


No, disagree. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. People are providing opinion, that’s what internet discussion forums are about. In this case discussions of events related Froome, his AAF and to doping in cycling.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,481
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

21 Jun 2018 02:55

DirtyWorks wrote:
wirral wrote:Handwringing - perfect choice of word.

Sky are controlling the process. Sky are dictating when the the process moves along and when it doesn't. Sky are determining outcomes.

It is possible Lappartient is so out of his depth he doesn't even realise this.

Expect more handwringing.


Disagree. He's replaying the Contador case timing. Contador got his appearance fees, Contador fans watched while the UCI slowed arbitration. Any "ban" was served mostly in the off-season. While other athletes simply vanish from the pro peloton, case swiftly arbitrated.

The UCI as a federation clearly favors riders and teams based on viewership and how much money they bring. Right now, it's Sky.


I take your point. However, I think that Sky (and their or Froome's legal team) are just too powerful and unyielding for Lappartient and the UCI and perhaps their legal expenses budget. He is getting publicly scolded by Prudhomme, the director of the Tour de France, by far cycling's biggest money spinner, and he is only able articulate his or the UCI's impotence in the matter in reply. I still think Sky is effectively calling the shots on the timeline for the adjudication process and the UCI is going along with them because it is too difficult to fight Sky on this and it is the least worst solution for the UCI in terms of timing.

I believe Sky had a plan to push this to just after the Tour (ban covers Froome's off-season primarily) and they have executed this plan.

If I am wrong and the UCI also wanted the adjudication verdict to come out in August, what would be the precise motivation for that in terms of cash flow or other economic benefits to the UCI?
User avatar wirral
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,553
Joined: 28 Mar 2011 06:05

Re: Re:

21 Jun 2018 03:48

wirral wrote:
DirtyWorks wrote:
wirral wrote:Handwringing - perfect choice of word.

Sky are controlling the process. Sky are dictating when the the process moves along and when it doesn't. Sky are determining outcomes.

It is possible Lappartient is so out of his depth he doesn't even realise this.

Expect more handwringing.


Disagree. He's replaying the Contador case timing. Contador got his appearance fees, Contador fans watched while the UCI slowed arbitration. Any "ban" was served mostly in the off-season. While other athletes simply vanish from the pro peloton, case swiftly arbitrated.

The UCI as a federation clearly favors riders and teams based on viewership and how much money they bring. Right now, it's Sky.


I take your point. However, I think that Sky (and their or Froome's legal team) are just too powerful and unyielding for Lappartient and the UCI and perhaps their legal expenses budget. He is getting publicly scolded by Prudhomme, the director of the Tour de France, by far cycling's biggest money spinner, and he is only able articulate his or the UCI's impotence in the matter in reply. I still think Sky is effectively calling the shots on the timeline for the adjudication process and the UCI is going along with them because it is too difficult to fight Sky on this and it is the least worst solution for the UCI in terms of timing.

I believe Sky had a plan to push this to just after the Tour (ban covers Froome's off-season primarily) and they have executed this plan.

If I am wrong and the UCI also wanted the adjudication verdict to come out in August, what would be the precise motivation for that in terms of cash flow or other economic benefits to the UCI?


Yep agree with all this, Sky are in full control. Regardless of whether Froome is guilty or not, he is likely to get off with the sheer weight of his defence. Dawg just keeps making cycling more and more ridiculous :cool:
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,481
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

21 Jun 2018 06:43

thehog wrote:
wirral wrote:
DirtyWorks wrote:
wirral wrote:Handwringing - perfect choice of word.

Sky are controlling the process. Sky are dictating when the the process moves along and when it doesn't. Sky are determining outcomes.

It is possible Lappartient is so out of his depth he doesn't even realise this.

Expect more handwringing.


Disagree. He's replaying the Contador case timing. Contador got his appearance fees, Contador fans watched while the UCI slowed arbitration. Any "ban" was served mostly in the off-season. While other athletes simply vanish from the pro peloton, case swiftly arbitrated.

The UCI as a federation clearly favors riders and teams based on viewership and how much money they bring. Right now, it's Sky.


I take your point. However, I think that Sky (and their or Froome's legal team) are just too powerful and unyielding for Lappartient and the UCI and perhaps their legal expenses budget. He is getting publicly scolded by Prudhomme, the director of the Tour de France, by far cycling's biggest money spinner, and he is only able articulate his or the UCI's impotence in the matter in reply. I still think Sky is effectively calling the shots on the timeline for the adjudication process and the UCI is going along with them because it is too difficult to fight Sky on this and it is the least worst solution for the UCI in terms of timing.

I believe Sky had a plan to push this to just after the Tour (ban covers Froome's off-season primarily) and they have executed this plan.

If I am wrong and the UCI also wanted the adjudication verdict to come out in August, what would be the precise motivation for that in terms of cash flow or other economic benefits to the UCI?


Yep agree with all this, Sky are in full control. Regardless of whether Froome is guilty or not, he is likely to get off with the sheer weight of his defence. Dawg just keeps making cycling more and more ridiculous :cool:


I don't think so. UCI can't ban him from racing before the verdict, although Lappartient tried hard. But after that, no Morgan's or Murdoch's of this world will save him. I'm expecting full year ban at least, backdated of course.
User avatar Blanco
Member
 
Posts: 1,384
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 19:33
Location: Serbia

21 Jun 2018 11:03

Lappartient had Tony Martin slapped into line after his little Froome-related outburst, what can he possibly do about Hinault: "The people from the UCI should have said, 'You were caught so you stay at home.'"

With ASO unable to play the disrepute rule, they and their surrogates are now playing the blame game with the UCI. Makes you think that the stories saying ASO would play the disrepute card came from Aigle...
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,850
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

26 Jun 2018 11:45

Blanco wrote:
thehog wrote:
wirral wrote:
DirtyWorks wrote:
wirral wrote:Handwringing - perfect choice of word.

Sky are controlling the process. Sky are dictating when the the process moves along and when it doesn't. Sky are determining outcomes.

It is possible Lappartient is so out of his depth he doesn't even realise this.

Expect more handwringing.


Disagree. He's replaying the Contador case timing. Contador got his appearance fees, Contador fans watched while the UCI slowed arbitration. Any "ban" was served mostly in the off-season. While other athletes simply vanish from the pro peloton, case swiftly arbitrated.

The UCI as a federation clearly favors riders and teams based on viewership and how much money they bring. Right now, it's Sky.


I take your point. However, I think that Sky (and their or Froome's legal team) are just too powerful and unyielding for Lappartient and the UCI and perhaps their legal expenses budget. He is getting publicly scolded by Prudhomme, the director of the Tour de France, by far cycling's biggest money spinner, and he is only able articulate his or the UCI's impotence in the matter in reply. I still think Sky is effectively calling the shots on the timeline for the adjudication process and the UCI is going along with them because it is too difficult to fight Sky on this and it is the least worst solution for the UCI in terms of timing.

I believe Sky had a plan to push this to just after the Tour (ban covers Froome's off-season primarily) and they have executed this plan.

If I am wrong and the UCI also wanted the adjudication verdict to come out in August, what would be the precise motivation for that in terms of cash flow or other economic benefits to the UCI?


Yep agree with all this, Sky are in full control. Regardless of whether Froome is guilty or not, he is likely to get off with the sheer weight of his defence. Dawg just keeps making cycling more and more ridiculous :cool:


I don't think so. UCI can't ban him from racing before the verdict, although Lappartient tried hard. But after that, no Morgan's or Murdoch's of this world will save him. I'm expecting full year ban at least, backdated of course.


Possiably but if he can keep it under 9 months from say August, Froomey will be back in 2019 like nothing happened. He can even claim he unfairly he was treated for only trying to keep control of his debilitating asthma.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,481
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

26 Jun 2018 20:34

Sky and Froome have been saying that from the start, and it’s working. At least on those who can’t see past the UK passport.
User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,930
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus

27 Jun 2018 05:01

He can even claim he unfairly he was treated for only trying to keep control of his debilitating asthma.

Whatever happens he'll claim that :D
"Are you going to believe me or what you see with your own eyes?"

“It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”
User avatar Robert5091
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,027
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re:

27 Jun 2018 06:55

42x16ss wrote:Sky and Froome have been saying that from the start, and it’s working. At least on those who can’t see past the UK passport.


It's working for their die-hard fans, but the ban will change things. He'll be one more convicted doper, like they gladly claim for Contador, Valverde and others...
User avatar Blanco
Member
 
Posts: 1,384
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 19:33
Location: Serbia

Re: Re:

27 Jun 2018 08:29

Blanco wrote:
42x16ss wrote:Sky and Froome have been saying that from the start, and it’s working. At least on those who can’t see past the UK passport.


It's working for their die-hard fans, but the ban will change things. He'll be one more convicted doper, like they gladly claim for Contador, Valverde and others...

I’m not so sure. A Froome ban would likely be seen by the diehards as the French and other nations being vindictive - a fabricated ban to stop UK dominance. Being Australian, we’re very used to their siege mentality when it comes to sport.
User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,930
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus

Re: Re:

27 Jun 2018 12:18

42x16ss wrote:
Blanco wrote:
42x16ss wrote:Sky and Froome have been saying that from the start, and it’s working. At least on those who can’t see past the UK passport.


It's working for their die-hard fans, but the ban will change things. He'll be one more convicted doper, like they gladly claim for Contador, Valverde and others...

I’m not so sure. A Froome ban would likely be seen by the diehards as the French and other nations being vindictive - a fabricated ban to stop UK dominance. Being Australian, we’re very used to their siege mentality when it comes to sport.


Nah, he'll be Kenyan again. Just like Rusedski went back to being Canadian when he got popped.

It really is amazing how little penetration Froome has made into the general British consciousness given his level of success and the current popularity of cycling. The die hard cycling fans will make excuses everyone else will be meh.
wansteadimp
Junior Member
 
Posts: 281
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 12:16

Re: Re:

01 Jul 2018 00:14

42x16ss wrote:
Blanco wrote:
42x16ss wrote:Sky and Froome have been saying that from the start, and it’s working. At least on those who can’t see past the UK passport.


It's working for their die-hard fans, but the ban will change things. He'll be one more convicted doper, like they gladly claim for Contador, Valverde and others...

I’m not so sure. A Froome ban would likely be seen by the diehards as the French and other nations being vindictive - a fabricated ban to stop UK dominance. Being Australian, we’re very used to their siege mentality when it comes to sport.


Tend to agree. The “I stand with Froomey” hashtag that was trending on Twitter and the “Leave our Lizzy alone” for Amistead, seemingly the British feel that if their athlete is caught it’s some form of injustice. For everyone else it just means that a dirty dopers from x country.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,481
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

01 Jul 2018 06:39

Yes, very true. That is why when Contador's positive was disclosed his national federation did all that they could to ensure a ban, and even the Spanish prime minister and the president of the Spanish Olympic Committee openly stated that Contador was guilty and should be banned.

:lol:
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

01 Jul 2018 06:44

macbindle wrote:Yes, very true. That is why when Contador's positive was disclosed his national federation did all that they could to ensure a ban, and even the Spanish prime minister and the president of the Spanish Olympic Committee openly stated that Contador was guilty and should be banned.

:lol:

WOT?
It was dirty meat. :p
SeriousSam wrote: Peña Cabarga is like Froome's Mount Doom, the place where his great power was forged into fearsome weapon. He was never going to lose here
User avatar silvergrenade
Member
 
Posts: 1,657
Joined: 23 Jan 2016 17:30

Re: Re:

01 Jul 2018 06:54

42x16ss wrote:
Blanco wrote:
42x16ss wrote:Sky and Froome have been saying that from the start, and it’s working. At least on those who can’t see past the UK passport.


It's working for their die-hard fans, but the ban will change things. He'll be one more convicted doper, like they gladly claim for Contador, Valverde and others...

I’m not so sure. A Froome ban would likely be seen by the diehards as the French and other nations being vindictive - a fabricated ban to stop UK dominance. Being Australian, we’re very used to their siege mentality when it comes to sport.


You shouldn't try and speak for all Australians. They don't all agree with you.

Here's a quote from an Aussie journalist about Australians attitudes in sport, and their demeanour in general:

"I’ve played a lot of sport in my life and despite never competing at a particularly high level I became well acquainted with the hyper-aggressive Australian male, the one for whom competitiveness and arseholery seem to be mutually inclusive"


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/27/ball-tampering-scandal-could-be-australian-fans-tipping-point

As you can see it's from an article about the Australian cricket cheats.

You should have a read of the rest of the article
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

02 Jul 2018 10:20

If they actually had any credibility in the first place it is now completely shot. Announcing the decision the week that the tour starts too, it's as if they want to show how big of a farce that professional cycling actually is.
ontheroad
Member
 
Posts: 926
Joined: 10 Oct 2012 18:04

Re:

02 Jul 2018 11:16

ontheroad wrote:If they actually had any credibility in the first place it is now completely shot. Announcing the decision the week that the tour starts too, it's as if they want to show how big of a farce that professional cycling actually is.


To be fair if WADA say that the rule they drew up for UCI is not sustainable then there is nothing that The UCI can do. It's not only cycling it's all sport.
Mayo from Mayo
Junior Member
 
Posts: 122
Joined: 30 Jun 2014 08:16

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot] and 99 guests

Back to top